Law & Disorder —

“Anonymous” attacks Sony to protest PS3 hacker lawsuit

Outraged by Sony's lawsuit against PS3 hacker George Hotz, the hacker …

The hacker hordes of Anonymous have transferred their fickle attention to Sony. They are currently attacking the company's online Playstation store in retribution for Sony's lawsuit against PS3 hacker George Hotz (aka "GeoHot"). A denial of service attack has temporarily taken down playstation.com.

In a manifesto announcing the new operation, Anonymous railed against Sony for going after coders who seek to modify hardware that they own. The lawsuits are an "unforgivable offense against free speech and internet freedom, primary sources of free lulz (and you know how we feel about lulz)."

"Your corrupt business practices are indicative of a corporate philosophy that would deny consumers the right to use products they have paid for and rightfully own, in the manner of their choosing," continues the pronouncement. "Perhaps you should alert your customers to the fact that they are apparently only renting your products? In light of this assault on both rights and free expression, Anonymous, the notoriously handsome rulers of the internet, would like to inform you that you have only been 'renting' your web domains. Having trodden upon Anonymous' rights, you must now be trodden on."

Anonymous is rallying participants to voluntarily contribute to the denial of service attack on Sony. That attack is continuing, and it appears to be far more successful than recent hits on Angel Soft toilet paper. In Anonymous chat rooms, participants bash Sony but worry about how their actions will be perceived. "Guys, you need to talk to the gamers and explain to them that this does not affect their gameplay," wrote one.

Some even hope to take credit for a small drop in Sony's stock price: "We're already causing sony stock to drop!!!"

While most Anonymous attacks remain online-only hacks or protests, Operation Sony will feature a real world component. On April 16, Anonymous wants people to gather at their local Sony stores to complain in person—no doubt leading participants to rummage through their closets in order to dig out the old Guy Fawkes mask.

I don't know, thinking about current issues, organizing against corporations you perceive as hostile, participating in a widespread protest movement significant enough to make the news again and again: that all sounds pretty productive to me. Sitting around at home playing Call of Duty, now THAT is unproductive.

Call me crazy, but they have a point. This whole Sony lawsuit thing is kind of stupid. If they want to hammer people for pirating games, fine, have fun with that little battle, but suing you for moding your PS3.....a little fucked up.

Worse yet, they want the personal info on anyone who visited the guys site, watched his video, or may possibly have the information they are suing him to keep out of their customers hands. Call me nuts but that seems like a blatant invasion of privacy to me.

Consumers should have the right to use products they have paid for in any way they want.

Shoulda, woulda, coulda; that's the law. If you don't like it, we have a process for dealing with that. It involves getting people enough elected who give a damn (and aren't bought and paid for) to fix with it.

That process does not involve playing childish pranks like DDSing a website.

Call me crazy, but they have a point. This whole Sony lawsuit thing is kind of stupid. If they want to hammer people for pirating games, fine, have fun with that little battle, but suing you for moding your PS3.....a little fucked up.

And had he just quietly done this, Sony wouldn't only not care, they wouldn't even know. But when he started publishing details and distributing exploits, that's when it got serious.

"Courage is contagious". It's easy to be courageous when you're one faceless IP address among many. Not so easy when people get to know your name. I don't expect anybody to show up at the Sony stores in protest.I hope I'm wrong -- if so, I'll honestly be impressed. Because that will show that at least some of anonymous has *actual* courage, and is willing to accept consequences for their actions.

After all, that is what sit-in type behaviors are supposed to be about: provoking the establishing specifically to invoke the consequences -- as THIS is what allows you to raise awareness of your cause.

If anonymous really wanted to do something about protecting what they see as free speech, internet freedom and lulz, then why don't they protest the DMCA which is gives Sony the protections to prevent its products and in this case DRM from being broken instead of attacking Sony for using the protections granted upon it by the government.

For why anonymous is targeting Sony, I don't know why they aren't attacking Microsoft or Apple who are even more protective of having control over their devices than Sony.

These guys really need something constructive to do with all that free time they have on their hands.

Unfortunately, script kiddy style DOSing is very much prone to "drive by activism." Most of the tools are basically "here if you support this cause, install this on your computer and it will do the rest." It's not really a matter of too much free time on the part of most who take part.

I agree with many of their complaints in a general sense in this case, but I'm not sure this is the way to get anything positive done, and many times their complaints are so poorly communicated and constructed as to possibly fail to convey or even detract from the support of the underlying fundamental issues. I know the saying about no bad publicity, but this isn't about publicity per se, it's more about a message, and there are ways to send messages that result in severe backlash against the message that was meant to be conveyed.

Property rights, including to purchased copies, are seriously under attack (well, it's gone so far beyond that as to be laughable really) both in the US and across the world. In an age where companies are lobbying for stronger and stronger copy"right" (a necessary concept to some degree, but by no means a "natural right") protection, they are at the same time arguing that you actually own practically nothing they sell you, you only own a license to "use" it as they see fit. Not only is it only the license you actually purchased when you buy anything intellectual property related (sometimes even when there was "hardware attached" to that software which was attached to that license), but it's worded denser than many circa million dollar contracts, is far more one sided, is considered to have been agreed to in a binding manner with nothing more than a click or breaking a seal, and often tries to claim that by "agreeing" you have forfeited legal rights or come as close to doing so as possible.

If something is sold at a retail level, the only "agreement" that should exist should be one where you acknowledge (not agree) that the seller has tried to relinquish responsibility for certain things, and that service components which go beyond whatever is in your immediate possession (things on the seller's property, such as their servers, which property does not include the copy you have now purchased and own as a copy) after the point of purchase may be rescinded. If a seller wants to stop you from connecting to their servers after (among other reasons) your making modifications to something you bought, fine. Those servers are still theirs, running server software they didn't sell to you. Coming after you for modifying the software you bought, though, especially software contained in a hardware product you bought from them? No, it does need to stop.

Licensing at the retail level needs to end unless both parties are sitting face to face, with lawyers present if they want to have them there, and have a potential input into the end licensing agreement. Enough of this one sided "well you didn't have to buy it" bs with reams of dense legalese that no layperson should ever be expected to read in detail and fully comprehend, especially not for what otherwise would seem like a straightforward purchase. The key word there is "bought," in many cases without a chance, much less a fair chance to peruse the licensing agreement. Sadly the issues sees much less exposure than the kind of one sided "dealing" and nefarious "agreements" the credit card companies were (and still are =/ much less what's happened with bankruptcy law just to protect a corrupt business model) using, so I doubt we'll see any reform on it.

Losers of the world unite and get fussed about something almost nobody gives a toss about. Good luck, Anonymous.

You do realize these lawsuits are because people didn't "give a toss" back in 1996, right?

I don't recall seeing "SoupD" show up in any forums denouncing the right for corporations to push a bill in 1996 through our purchased government so they can sue GeoHot in 2011 titled the DMCA.

Yet, here we are.

Give a toss now before garage door companies say it's illegal to recode a third party opener. Oops. That one already happened.

Give a toss now before DVD players stop playing because of a lack of an update to play a legally purchased movie, bricking over 100,000 units (and counting) in the process. Not giving a toss made you late to this party, too. Perhaps you consider yourself lucky this time.

One of these days, the DMCA will catch up to you, if it hasn't already.

I don't expect anybody to show up at the Sony stores in protest.I hope I'm wrong -- if so, I'll honestly be impressed. Because that will show that at least some of anonymous has *actual* courage, and is willing to accept consequences for their actions.

Umm.. Anonymous didn't say they would be present, they want other people to go and protest. That says it all, really.

I think the flaws in Sony's position on this are clear to most informed people, and I would guess that many are sympathetic to geohot's side. I, for one, think Sony would be far ahead of the game by not only dropping the suit, but by engaging with geohot and their other customers to bring a result that is satisfying to all.

So while I agree with Anonymous' thought process and position on this issue, their actions are childish and do not further their cause. They should be out there educating people and making them understand the position of those opposed to Sony's actions - a sure win for them - instead of perpetuating annoyances like DOS attacks that just harden the position of those who disagree. Anonymous: you are right and you have a winnable argument. Don't throw that away with childish antics that few support, even if they're otherwise on your side.

Consumers should have the right to use products they have paid for in any way they want.

Shoulda, woulda, coulda; that's the law. If you don't like it, we have a process for dealing with that. It involves getting people enough elected who give a damn (and aren't bought and paid for) to fix with it.

That process does not involve playing childish pranks like DDSing a website.

I believe you're implying that the electoral process somehow works in favor of the consumer against corporate giants. Care to cite any examples?

No matter who's right or wrong, a little anti-marketing against Sony might make them think twice about their product strategy. Remember that these are the same people that brought you DRM rootkits on music CD's. If they are not challenged, what precedent will they try to set next?

Then stfu about it. It doesn't concern you. I know your inflated sense of self makes you think that since aren't concerned about an issue others must not be as well. Unfortunately it's not reality

So what you're saying is only people in America can have opinions about what goes on in America? Wow.. just.. WOW! You don't see that because of the actions of this dickhead (Geothot) - that is revealing an attack vector - that Sony removed functionality from the PS3 in ALL countries? You know that, right!?!

While few people outside the tech nerds like you and me know of the Sony/Hotz crap, and Sony's PR nightmare... the media seem to love reporting on anything Anonymous humps (Anonymous - the new Paris Hilton?) which is a good thing...

Losers of the world unite and get fussed about something almost nobody gives a toss about. Good luck, Anonymous.

You do realize these lawsuits are because people didn't "give a toss" back in 1996, right?

I don't recall seeing "SoupD" show up in any forums denouncing the right for corporations to push a bill in 1996 through our purchased government so they can sue GeoHot in 2011 titled the DMCA.

Yet, here we are.

Give a toss now before garage door companies say it's illegal to recode a third party opener. Oops. That one already happened.

Give a toss now before DVD players stop playing because of a lack of an update to play a legally purchased movie, bricking over 100,000 units (and counting) in the process. Not giving a toss made you late to this party, too. Perhaps you consider yourself lucky this time.

One of these days, the DMCA will catch up to you, if it hasn't already.

I hate to break it to you kiddo, but as someone who was involved as much as he could be back then, it most certainly WAS NOT the case that we didn't give a toss. The problem with the DMCA wasn't that it was 'bought' legislation, it was that it was what most considered the best compromise that could be hammered out given the alternative, the problem was that the folk working on the law were far too optimistic about the government and corporations keeping to the spirit of the law and made stupid mistakes that could have been seen had they assumed that every loop hole would be exploited to the max extent.

That isn't a new mistake to make, nor was it the last time that mistake occurred (see: PATRIOT Act & the perversion of it's intent to allow the government better tools to fight terrorism by numerous DA's reclassifying things like drugs as 'chemical weapons' so they could skirt the existing laws).

I have been reading all the stories about "Anonymous" with a sort of passive interest, but now that they are going after Sony, I'm 100% behind them ... wondering where I can send an anonymous donation.

Clearly no one has actually been following this case. Hotz hacked the PS3, found some encryption or authentication key, which is Sony's intellectual property, and released it online with tools to further hack the PS3. Furthermore, Sony traced one of his PS3's serial numbers to an account, made where Hotz lives, and found posts discussing jailbreaking cellphones, which is what he previously has done and means he signed the terms of service, so....where's the controversy here?